Talk:Dracula (1924 play)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming[edit]

I have reverted User:Discographer's attempt to move this page to Dracula (play), for several reasons, among which:

1. It was attempted as a cut-and-paste move, which in not the correct method of moving a page, as it breaks the edit history.

2. The consequences of the change would be significant enough that it should not be done unilaterally; it ought to be discussed, and a consensus achieved.

I would like to address the specific reason Discographer gave for the move, but (sorry Discographer) I can't figure out what it is. (For the record: "switch with 1924 play (article) as all notable shows are here")

I'm guessing at an assumption that when people refer to the play version of Dracula they usually mean the 1924 Deane adaptation or one of its revisions or revivals. I don't think this is actually a safe assumption. There are at least two other non-musical stage adaptations of the novel; most of the pages currently linking to Dracula (play) are unclear about which play they mean, and at least one of them definitely isn't referring to the Deane version (L.A. Theatre Works used the more recent Charles Morey adaptation, which doesn't have its own Wikipedia page yet). — Paul A (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. A new article is being specifically created for the 1977 version. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the “original” production…?[edit]

The 1924 London production is treated here as the “original”, and elsewhere on Wikipedia reference is made to Raymond Huntley being the first person to play Dracula in this play; however the article then lists a Derby production of the same year with no further information about it anywhere. Did it come first? Jock123 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dracula (1924 play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

Dracula (1977 play) is actually a revival production of this play. I think it would be best to merge that article into this one, since it is a later performance of this play (the 1927 revision) rather than a 1977 adaptation of the novel. I've put some work into the structure of this article and that should be a bit clearer, now. — WFinch (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In Broadway and theatre terms, bad idea. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the revival is notable enough to merit a separate article, perhaps the title could be changed to remove the implication that it is an altogether separate adaptation. — WFinch (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done instead[edit]

Dracula (1924 play) and Dracula (1977 play) should both be merged into Dracula (play). That's exactly what should be done. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, I was all set to move the article to Dracula (play) until I first saw the discussion here and knew it wouldn't be without controversy. Then I found that there are two other existing articles for plays listed on the disambiguation page — Dracula (1995 play) and Dracula (1996 play) — in addition to the article on the 1977 revival of the 1927 play. I, too, would prefer that the most notable play get the Dracula (play) article title, but that may not conform with article naming policies. It'd be helpful if experienced representatives of WP:THEATRE could consider the matter. — WFinch (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That copy/paste move was bad on my part, and I took the blame. Now, here is this:
Amongst the popular and longest-running Broadway shows, Dracula (1924 play) is not the primary topic, that would be Dracula (1977 play). Most people interested in Broadway and theatre will want to look up that 1977 play, not a 1924 play that will only lead to any inappropriate distraction.
Here are some other good examples:
The 1924 Dracula play is very much unlike any of these, but the 1977 play is. This is why both Dracula (1924 play) and Dracula (1977 play) should be merged into Dracula (play).
Also, when using Google to look up Broadway's long-running Dracula play, Wikipedia's entry should hold true to that very meaning. The 1924 play, as opposed to the 1977 play, is far from that. The other versions of the play are not as notable either.
Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging Dracula (1977 play) to Dracula (1924 play). According to the article, the 1977 production is the play first produced in 1924. Productions of a play, including later revivals, are part of the history of the same work. That is why, for example, there is only one article about Hamlet, which covers its performance history across time. (That's a featured article, in case anyone thinks it is a poor example.) The examples above are all off-point because the titles represent the years those plays were first produced, which also happened to be their most successful productions. Dracula was first produced in 1924 and happened to have its most successful production later, but it's all one history. The 1977 article title should become a link to the section that discusses the revival. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hamlet is a great choice in choosing for comparison. Since no other articles other than the 1924 and 1977 plays are even remotely close to even being notable, this is the very reason they are to be merged into Dracula (play), consistent with all articles of plays and musicals. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If all the other Dracula plays aren't notable, then by all means start deletion processes for the articles. I have no objection to the combined article about this play being at Dracula (play) if/when it's unambiguous. When it is ambiguous, disambiguation by year of first production is typical, as shown in the examples you gave above. --RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! All non-notable plays are ready to be merged with their respective writer's articles (I myself can't delete any articles, an admin has to). Please begin the process now into merging Dracula (1977 play) and Dracula (1924 play) into Dracula (play). Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this several months later, I have just merged the 1977 article to the 1924 article. Several other articles about Dracula plays still exist, so I did not move the 1924 article to Dracula (play). --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close per Special:Diff/873845565. No prejudice to speedy renomination on conclusion of RFC. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dracula (1924 play) → Dracula (Deane play) – Plays and other literary works are covered by WP:NCBOOKS, and WP:BOOKDAB states that the author's surname should be used if further disambigution is needed, not year. The use of a year is especially inappropriate here, as the article also covers a 1927 revision and a 1977 revival. --woodensuperman 13:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, since only written plays are literary works, and presentation plays, musicals, film and television, are not. They are shows we watch and not read! Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. All plays are literary works. They are all written! --woodensuperman 09:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Discographer - a play is something people watch or hear, not a book. And per most understandable form, for example, if somehow this passes then when listed on the Dracula template it would still be described as "1924 play" and not "Deane play". If this question is incorrectly covered or mentioned in the guideline then the guideline should remove the work 'play'. The actual guideline criteria reads "This is a naming conventions guideline for the naming of Wikipedia articles about books, which includes printed books and e-books." Printed books. Not plays. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And look at the other criteria in the lede of the guideline. It specifically separates plays from books and puts plays in the same category as films and paintings: "The titles of books (usually meaning the title of the literary work contained in the book) are capitalized by the same convention that governs other literary and artistic works such as plays, films, paintings etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOOKDAB says "To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(short story collection)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", "(poem)", "(poetry collection)", etc." --woodensuperman 09:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, something like '(1924 play)'? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it then goes on to say "If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses". --woodensuperman 11:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the same guideline where the lede puts 'plays' into the same realm of artistic creations as films and paintings. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an inconsistency there, but that's about capitalization. The part of the guideline that deals with disambiguation specifically mentions plays within its scope. --woodensuperman 11:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a printed book like this one? --woodensuperman 11:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the inconsistency is in the lede, which 'guides' the entire guideline, maybe these RM's should be put on hold and an RfC put up at the guideline page to solve this discrepancy. It seems some editors think of plays as being in the same realm of art as films and paintings, and others see them as a book. The lede actually says "other literary and artistic works such as plays, films, paintings etc." Could be an interesting discussion, and probably a needed one before these RM's should move forward. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well those are wrong too. Someone created as series of Dracula play stubs without awareness of how plays are titled. I've put in a RM to fix those as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand the opposes. Are the opposes not aware that plays are books? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; just like movies are screenplays and songs are sheet music. Plays are performance works with a script. --RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dracula_(1924_play)&oldid=1200348877"